SATYENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the adverse entries in the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for the years 1989 -90, 1990 -91 and 1993 -94, as contained in Annexure -1, Annexure -4 and Annexure -6 respectively.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Bihar and the adverse entry for the period 1989 -90 and 1990 -91 pertains to his service as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police and the entry relating to the year 1993 -94 relates to his duties as Additional Superintendent of Police. The entry of 1989 -90, as contained in Annexure -1, shows that he was graded as an officer of outstanding category and his work in the maintenance of law and order was found to be commendable but in the office work he was found to be lagging and it has been noted that he failed to make improvement despite repeated directions. The petitioner made representation against the said entry detailing the work done by him in the office. It was also stated that the entry does not contain the details about the directions issued. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Government by letter dated 23.3.1996.

(3.) THE entry for the work for the period from 1.4.1990 to 14.10.1990 (relating to the period 1991), as contained in Annexure -4, shows that although he was found to be vigilant for resolving the problem of law and order but office work remained pending excessively and effective action was not taken against criminal gangs of serious offences. The petitioner made representation against the said adverse entry also (copy at Annexure -5). He had given details about the work done by him in curbing crime. This representation was also rejected by the Government.